There Will Be Blood

2007 may go down in movie history very much like 1939, the height of the golden age of Hollywood. In 1939, Hollywood produced such classics as Gone With the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach and The Wizard of Oz. In 2007, we have films such as Sweeney Todd, Atonement and Once. Each of those films can be appreciated even years later. Now I have just seen Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest work, There Will Be Blood, and it is simply his best work to date.

Ever since his feature film debut Boogie Nights in 1997, Anderson has been considered a boy genius, very much like Orson Welles was in the 1940s. His 1999 follow-up Magnolia puzzled many audience and some critics. I didn’t particularly like Boogie Nights, but was quite intrigued by Magnolia, especially the singing sequence and biblical references. Anderson is a filmmaker who is not afraid of trying anything and clearly wants to break the conventional narrative mold. His third film in 2002, Punch Drunk Love, is a weird dark comedy/drama starring a big commercial asset Adam Sandler. It is a very light film in his standard and it lost me.

Now five years later, Anderson comes back with an epic that may astonish even his strongest supporters. His three earlier films simply don’t prepare you for the greatness that shows in this film. One reason that this film stands far above his other three works may be the star in this film: Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis has long been regarded the best actor in his generation. In Blood, he gives a performance that will be taught in film schools for years to come.

Like the other three films, Anderson wrote the script for Blood, loosely based on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!. I have not read the book, but according to most critics, Anderson’s film is quite a departure from the original book. Blood is very much a fable dealing with two biggest American obsessions – greed and religion.

Daniel Plainview (played by Day-Lewis) is an ambitious, greedy oil prospector at the turn of the century. The first 10-15 minutes of the movie has little dialogue and shows us clearly the harsh conditions in the early days of oil business. We see Plainview’s humble beginning and how he slowly and steadily accumulates his fortune. Anderson has always been eager to break movie traditions, but ironically, in his best film, his narrative style is very much old-fashioned. It may still be looked upon as slow paced by audiences used to Hollywood action films, but moves much more quickly than his other three films. It is not too artsy aloof like Magnolia to keep the audiences interest. There are many conflicts around in Blood to keep us interested.

The landscape used in the movie for the Texas location is ideal for the purpose. Its vast emptiness represents all the wealth waiting to be discovered and the loneliness experienced by Plainview. The lands may be his only friend in his quest for fortune. Through the years, he has alienated his few loved ones. His relationship with his son is a perfect example of his complicity: he loves his son while he also has no qualm using him as a tool in his business dealings; when his son becomes disabled, he cannot accept the consequences and does something unthinkable of a parent; even when he realizes his mistake and tries to rectify it, he still cannot face it in a rational way. Ruthless is in his blood and gentleness is alien to him.

I also love the way Anderson pit greed against religion. Plainview’s nemesis in the movie is young preacher Eli Sunday (played by Paul Dano). The best scenes in the movie are the ones they face each other. Dano is clearly quite green next to Day-Lewis, but that is exactly the effect Anderson needs for the movie: Dano’s seemingly innocent piety vs. Day-Lewis’s shrewd and hard-hearted greediness. Even though the film deals with serious moral issues, Anderson’s script is not all dry and heavy. There is humorous dialogue and many small details in the movie, especially those scenes between Dano and Day-Lewis. It is such a delight to watch how Day-Lewis uses both word plays and his actions to torture Dano.

Day-Lewis is an intense actor. One can argue that his Plainview character may not be that different from his last Oscar-nominated role, Bill “the Butcher” in Gangs of New York. They are both cruel yet vulnerable and they even look alike with their mustache. However, Daniel Plainview is a much better written and developed character. If Day-Lewis was robbed of an Oscar in 2003, 2008 is definitely going to be his year to shine. He is not really acting in this movie, he has become Daniel Plainview. Plainview suffers some physical hardship at the beginning of the movie and later on when we see him, Day-Lewis always walks with a slightly bent stiff back and a slight limp in his legs. These special character quirks add to his credibility as the character. Even when he laughs, you feel worried and can sense some terrible things that he may utter or do. That is how good he plays this character.

Near the end of the movie, Blood feels very much like Welles’ Citizen Kane. Plainview may be rich beyond his wildest imagination and lives in a mansion probably far bigger and grander than his childhood dream, yet he is so lonely and isolated in that big house, the same way Charles Kane was in his final days.

The best part of this movie is no doubt Plainview, but he is also the main flaw of this movie. In the end, Anderson cannot escape the tendency by many filmmakers to make their characters too dramatic. It seems that all complicated characters have to be insane in some way to complete their character arc and I was disappointed when Plainview sort of falls into the same trap. I don’t quite buy the film’s ending. To me, Plainview would have enjoyed his victory over Eli financially and emotionally. However, this tiny flaw does not diminish the greatness of Anderson’s film. It is truly a powerful masterpiece for all to see.